Background and purpose: Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem during pregnancy and assumes to be a part of normal pregnancy caused by normal physiological changes. Pregnancy-related LBP is one of the main reasons for disability, absence from work and responsible for huge direct and indirect economical impact.  This article systematically REVIEWs papers concerning the epidemiology and risk factors on LBP in pregnant women.  Materials and methods: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Rose-Net, OVID, and BIDS were searched for the period of 1985-2003, using the key words 'low back pain', 'epidemiology', 'pregnancy', 'risk factors'. In addition, references given in relevant publications were used. Results: Eighteen studies were identified. Eleven studies investigated epidemiology of LBP during pregnancy and the prevalence were reported >50% in 8 (73%) studies.  Ten studies were carried out on the epidemiology of LBP after pregnancy.  The prevalence of LBP were reported >40% in 6 (60%) studies.  Among different reported risk factors, previous LBP as well as younger age were the most important risk factors. Conclusion: Although there were some methodological flaws (e.g., small sample size of the study population, lack of clear classification and definition for LBP, different study design, different methods of study implementation, etc.) which precludes strong conclusion, it appears that LBP is one of the most common problem, during pregnancy and after delivery. It should also be noted that education and certain exercises can be beneficial to the pregnant women in the absence of medical complications.

Pulses form stable dietary components for majority of population across the world. Different people consume pulses in different ways like Uncooked, Soaked, and cooked or only cooked without soaking. All these processing techniques lead to changes in the nutritional value of the pulses. Studies have also reported that in addition to nutritional components like Proteins, Carbohydrates, and fats, pulses also contain anti-nutritional components like Lectins, Tannins, and Polyphenols that greatly interfere with digestion of pulses in the human intestine. Hence in the current study a comprehensive REVIEW is being compiled to evaluate the nutritional and antinutritional aspects of pulses and effect of processing methods on invitro protein and starch digestibility of the pulses.

Background: Successful clinical decisions are the outcome of a complex process. In making them, we draw on information from scientific evidences, our personal experience and external rules and constraints. Considering that the explosive increase in the amount and quality of the scientific evidence that has come from both the laboratory bench and the bedside, we may lack the time, motivation, and basic skills needed to find, critically appraise, and synthesize information. Fortunately, systematic REVIEWs help us and answer sharply defined clinical questions. This article deals with two questions; a: what is a systematic REVIEW and, b: how should we organize it? Methods: We searched MEDLINE database with search terms of systematic REVIEW and narrative REVIEW, restricted to English language, without time limitation. Then we selected those articles written by renowned experts. Results: There are two types of REVIEW articles: narrative REVIEW and systematic REVIEW. Narrative REVIEW has been the conventional method for writing REVIEW articles; since it is subjective, it may be subject to error and bias; in areas where there is lack or paucity of evidence, the narrative REVIEW may still be the best writing method. Systematic REVIEW is the precise, systematic and classified method of REVIEWing the existing data and evidences. It is objective, constructive and comprehensive and has much less error and bias than the narrative REVIEW.Conclusion: Systematic REVIEWs are thus a vital link in the great chain of evidence that stretches from the laboratory bench to the bedside. It is absolutely essential for targeting these goals, for writing a systematic REVIEW, a fully trained team with an expert leader and a precise protocol is essential.

In traditional speech processing, feature extraction and classification were conducted as separate steps. The advent of deep neural networks has enabled methods that simultaneously model the relationship between acoustic and phonetic characteristics of speech while classifying it directly from the raw waveform. The first convolutional layer in these networks acts as a filter bank. To enhance interpretability and reduce the number of parameters, researchers have explored the use of parametric filters, with the SincNet architecture being a notable advancement. In SincNet's initial convolutional layer, rectangular bandpass filters are learned instead of fully trainable filters. This approach allows for modeling with fewer parameters, thereby improving the network's convergence speed and accuracy. Analyzing the learned filter bank also provides valuable insights into the model's performance. The reduction in parameters, along with increased accuracy and interpretability, has led to the adoption of various parametric filters and deep architectures across diverse speech processing applications. This paper introduces different types of parametric filters and discusses their integration into various deep architectures. Additionally, it examines the specific applications in speech processing where these filters have proven effective.

Background: In the outbreak of infectious diseases, non-pharmacological intervention might be the only available protection tools. The aim of this systematic REVIEW is to investigate whether it is or is not necessary to wear masks in new corona virus (COVID-19) outbreaks in the community. Methods: On February, 28, 2020, related databases were searched with the following keywords: "COVID-19"; "COVID 19"; 2019-nCoV; 2019-CoV; coronavirus; mask* and facemask. We updated the search in March 13, 2020. A total of 982 relevant reports were identified after removing duplicates. Of these, 71 references were screened based on titles and abstracts. After excluding unrelated studies, 36 studies were included in the full-text REVIEW and were assessed for eligibility. Finally, 3 articles met our inclusion criteria. Results: In three wards of hospital with more exposure to infected patients, wearing the N95 respirator while using regular disinfectants and hand hygiene, was a better way to prevent COVID-19 transmission from patients to nurses and physicians when compared to non-users of masks. Another study on family members with a history of travelling to Wuhan, showed that those who had worn a surgical mask only during the hospital visit, were infected. However, the 7 years old child of the family who wore a surgical mask, was not found to be infected by COVID-19. Finally, none of eleven healthcare workers who had unprotected exposure with confirmed cases were infected. Conclusion: Due to the newness of the COVID-19 virus, no clinical trials have been found regarding the use of the masks in the prevention of the disease, and the level of evidence were low.